Lawsuit: In Session Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42

Franciscus

Franciscus

Citizen
Supporter
Oakridge Resident
Change Maker 5th Anniversary
Multiman155
Multiman155
Attorney
Joined
Apr 25, 2025
Messages
119

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Munkler (Mezimoří Legal Department representing)
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


The Plaintiff, Munkler, brings this case against the Commonwealth of Redmont, alleging multiple violations of constitutional and statutory rights stemming from two arrests by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees. On May 21 20, 2025, Plaintiff was falsely arrested without any visible wanted status and was later admitted by the arresting officer to have been mistakenly detained. On May 24, 2025, Plaintiff was again arrested and jailed for “10m” without being advised of their Miranda rights prior to being transported for questioning, without being given a fair trial, and without being given sufficient time for counsel—violating constitutional protections under Sections 32(9), 32(15), and 32(17), as well as the Miranda Warning Act. The Plaintiff contends that these actions constituted unlawful seizure and due process violations, and seeks a declaratory judgment, $500 in statutory damages for time unlawfully served, reimbursement of any fines paid, $10,000 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment and safety, $7,500 in nominal damages if compensatory damages are denied, and at least $2,000 in legal fees.
Click to expand...


I. PARTIES
1. Munkler
2. Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
  1. On 21 20 May 2025, Redmont citizen Munkler (“Plaintiff”) was arrested by Department of Homeland Security employee Rubilubi55 (see exhibit P-001).
  2. Upon being arrested, Rubilubi55 told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be charged with “2x murder”.
  3. The Plaintiff told Rubilubi55 that Rubilubi55 had arrested the wrong person; the Plaintiff did not have even any wanted stars displayed (Exhibit P-001).
  4. In the "Training Guide for Trainee Officers", within its "PART THREE: ARRESTING MURDERERS" section, it is stated that citizens "must have a proper wanted point to be arrested. Nothing else suffices" (emphasis in original; see: Exhibit P-006).
  5. The "Training Guide for Trainee Officers", within its "PART THREE: ARRESTING MURDERERS" section states that officers should "Make sure to double, triple check when you run /wanted gui" (see: Exhibit P-006).
  6. It is possible for an officer to examine the name of a wanted suspect by opening the /wanted gui and hovering over the head of that player (see: Exhibit P-006).
  7. 4. After hearing this, Rubilubi55 admitted that the Plaintiff had been falsely arrested (Exhibit P-002).
  8. 5. The Plaintiff then conveyed to Department of Homeland Security employee Rubilubi55 that the Plaintiff did not feel safe being in a city where the Plaintiff could be arrested randomly (Exhibit P-003).
  9. 6. Section 32, Clause 15 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”
  10. 7. In arresting, transporting, and imprisoning the Plaintiff on 21 20 May 2025, DHS and its agents did seize the Plaintiff.
  11. 8. Because DHS employe Rubilubi55 arrested the Plaintiff without any legitimate cause (such as a wanted star), this seizure of the Plaintiff on 21 20 May 2025 was unreasonable.
  12. 9. Three days later, the Plaintiff was arrested by Department of Homeland Security employee PricelessArgari (Exhibit P-004).
  13. 10. PricelessArgari transported the Plaintiff to the jail without reading Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s Miranda rights (Exhibit P-004).
  14. The "Training Guide for Trainee Officers" states "Make sure to double check that you run /dhs-notify (charges) before arresting" (see: Exhibit P-006).
  15. 11. PricelessArgari then created a crime record for the Plaintiff, with a stated reason of “10m”.
  16. 12. Section 32, Clause 9 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[a]ny citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.”
  17. 13. Section 32, Clause 17 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[e]very citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.”
  18. 14. The Miranda Warning Act states that “Every citizen charged with an offense must: a. be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense; b. be advised, without unreasonable delay, that they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them.”
  19. 15. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Violent Offences Act.
  20. 16. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Government Service Offenses Act.
  21. 17. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Bank Trespass Act.
  22. 18. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Miscellaneous Offenses Act.
  23. 19. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Trespassing and Theft Offenses Act.
  24. 20. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Verbally Threatening Act.
  25. 21. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Illicit Trafficking Offenses Act.
  26. 22. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Vehicular Offenses Act.
  27. 23. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Animal & Pet Offences Act.
  28. 24. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Health & Medical Offenses Act.
  29. 25. The stated reason for imprisonment of “10m” did not identify or inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was accused of any particular crime listed in the Accomplice and Conspiracy Offenses Act.
  30. 26. “10m” is not an identifiable crime. It does not inform anyone of the nature of accusations against the Plaintiff, and does not allow the Plaintiff to properly and fairly defend himself against purported criminal allegations.
  31. 27. The Plaintiff was sentenced to 10 minutes in jail without a trial in front of an independent Judicial Officer.
  32. 28. On 24 May 2025, The Plaintiff was not substantially confronted with the evidence against them by officials who had accused the Plaintiff of running afoul of the law, even as the Department of Homeland Security held the Plaintiff in confinement.
  33. Following the arrest of the Plaintiff on 24 May, PricelessAgrari read the Plaintiff their Miranda Rights no earlier than 3:15:39 PM EDT and no later than 3:15:44 PM EDT (see: Exhibits P-010 and P-011).
  34. The Plaintiff was jailed on 24 May at a time no later than 3:15:48 PM EDT (see: Exhibit P-012).
  35. Less than 10 seconds passed between the time that PricelessAgrari informed the Plaintiff that the means to dispute the charge would be to file a DHS #support ticket and the time that the Plaintiff was jailed (see: Exhibits P-010, P-011, P-012).
  36. The Plaintiff was fined $100 on 24 May by PricelessAgrari at a time no later than 3:16:19 PM EDT (see: Exhibit P-012).
  37. 33. 29. On 24 May 2025, The Plaintiff was not permitted sufficient time to consult with counsel for their defense prior to being sent to jail.
  38. 34. 30. The failure of DHS and its agents on 24 May 2025 to be confronted with the evidence to be used against the Plaintiff, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence, in total amounts to a violation of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
  39. 35. 31. The failure of DHS and its agents on 24 May 2025 to swiftly advise the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to remain silent and that any statement the Plaintiff makes may be used as evidence against the Plaintiff amounts to a violation of the statutory and constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
  40. 36. 32. As a result of these instances, the Plaintiff has lost confidence in the police force, and has suffered a reduced sense of safety while in public (see: Exhibit P-003).


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. As noted in the Facts section of this complaint, Section 32, Clause 9 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[a]ny citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.” However, in this case, no trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer was had, the Plaintiff was not confronted with the evidence against the Plaintiff, and the nature and cause of the accusation was not made clear from the crime logs (“10m” does not describe the crime, but rather the punishment).
  2. Additionally, Section 32, Clause 17 of the Constitution of Redmont states that “[e]very citizen has the right to be informed of the reason for a subpoena, detention, or arrest made against them.” The DHS and its agents ignored all of this, depriving the Plaintiff of their fundamental and well-established constitutional rights.
  3. To uphold these rights, the Miranda Warning Act requires that “every citizen charged with an offense must: a. be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense; b. be advised, without unreasonable delay, that they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them.” The Defendant and its agents did not timely inform the Plaintiff that they were being charged with any specific offense that exists under the law prior to bringing the Plaintiff to the police station on 24 May, nor did Defendant’s agents timely advise the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to remain silent or that the Plaintiff’s statements may be used against them in a court of law on that same date. In doing so, DHS and its agents have violated the plaintiff’s statutory rights, in addition to the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
  4. As stated in Section 4, Clause 2(c) of the Standardized Criminal Code Act, “If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed, they shall be compensated $50 per minute spent in jail for offenses found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offenses.” The arrest and subsequent 10-minute sentence of the Plaintiff on 24 May were unlawful, as the crime record provided to the Plaintiff does not note any particular valid charges that were presented or proven. Moreover, the arrest on 21 20 May was likely unlawful, and resulted in unjust detention along the same lines. These allow for statutory damages to be pursued.
  5. As stated in Section 32, Clauses 14-15 of the Constitution of Redmont, “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice[; e]very citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” By arresting, transporting, and imprisoning the Plaintiff on 2120 May 2025, even though the Defendant did not commit any crime for which the Plaintiff was arrested and transported, the Defendant and its agents did seize the Plaintiff and deprive the Plaintiff of liberty. Because there was no legal basis for this arrest, the seizure was unreasonable and violated the Plaintiff’s core constitutional rights and principles of fundamental justice.
  6. As a result of the above, the Plaintiff has had diminished the Plaintiff’s ability to freely walk throughout the Commonwealth of Redmont without fear of extralegal action by the Department of Homeland Security. This has caused the Plaintiff to change their behavior and colored their interaction with the DHS relative to what it had been before the false arrest of 2120 May 2025. The Legal Damages Act §7(1)(a)(III), acknowledges this sort of incalculable harm, and permits the Plaintiff to seek damages along these lines.
  7. Common Law Negligence. Under the precedent set by the Federal Court in Raitheguy07 v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, common law negligence occurs when three factors are met: "1) a duty of care, 2) breach of duty, and 3) damages or remedy". Each of these prongs is met.
    • 1) Duty of Care. That the Commonwealth owed the Plaintiff a duty of care is quite clear here.

      Firstly, the Commonwealth has a duty not to violate the enumerated rights of its citizens under Section 32 of the Constitution, such as the right against unreasonable seizure (c.f. Const. 32(15)), the right against unjust deprivation of liberty (c.f. Const. 32(14)), and the various due process rights under Const. 32(9).

      Secondly a statutory duty of care under the Miranda Warnings Act to advise the Plaintiff without unreasonable delay that the Plaintiff "be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense". Police ought be aware of this, and are even advised in the Training Guide for Trainee Officers to "double check that you run /dhs-notify (charges) before arresting".

      Thirdly, a statutory duty of care under the Miranda Warnings Act exists to inform arrestees, such as the Plaintiff that "they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them".
    • 2) Breaches of Duty of Care. The breaches of the duty, likewise, are clear.

      With respect to the the arrest of the Plaintiff on 2120 May: the Plaintiff was certainly deprived of liberty while arrested and taken to the jail and was seized for arrest without being wanted. This clearly constitutes a breach of the constitutional duty of care. And this breach is something that can be easily avoided; as the Training Guide for Trainee Officers notes, murder suspects "must have a proper wanted point to be arrested. Nothing else suffices". And, if this was because the arresting officer lazily did not get the name of the individual who was wanted before making an arrest, this is not an excuse; lazy action that harms the rights of the citizens are not consistent with fundamental principles of justice. Officers are even trained, as the Trainee Guide for Trainee Officers notes, to "double, triple check" when using the /wanted gui.

      With respect to the arrest of the Plaintiff on 24 May, the breaches are also clear. Various constitutional due process rights under Const. 32(9), such as the right to
    • 3) Damages or remedy. Again, damages are clear, and a remedy is present.

      The damages include direct, incalculable damages for violations of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights in being unlawfully seized, deprived of liberty, and deprived of constitutional due process rights. Additionally, the Plaintiff was clearly deprived of statutory rights under the Miranda Warning Act. These are concrete and cognizable damages.

      Remedy also exists. Declaratory judgement, stating that the actions were illegal, and nominal damages exist for these sorts of incalculable damages.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
  1. Declaratory Judgement:
    • The Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the Commonwealth’s actions were unlawful and infringed on the rights of the Plaintiff. In particular, the Plaintiff asks that this Court declare that:
    • The arrest of the Plaintiff on 2120 May 2025 described in this Complaint was illegal and violated the Plaintiff’s right against unreasonable seizure as enumerated in Const.§32(15);
    • The Commonwealth failed to timely provide the Plaintiff with notice of the Plaintiff’s rights under the Miranda Warning Act, and thereby did indeed violate the statutory rights of the Plaintiff;
    • The Commonwealth deprived the Plaintiff a fair and speedy trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, did not substantially confront the Plaintiff with the evidence against the Plaintiff, and did not permit the Plaintiff to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defense prior to sending the Plaintiff to prison, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s rights under Const.§32(9);
    • The Commonwealth jailing the Plaintiff for the reason “10m” did not aptly inform the Plaintiff of the reason for the Plaintiff’s detention in prison, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s right to be informed of the reason for a detention under Const.§32(17).
  2. Compensatory damages – statutory damages:
    • $500 in compensatory damages under Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(2)(c), which entitles the Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely.
    • Renumeration in full of any fines paid by the Plaintiff following the 2120 May 2025 and/or 24 May 2025 arrest of the Plaintiff.
  3. Consequential damages– Loss of enjoyment in Redmont
    • To compensate the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s loss of enjoyment arising from what the Plaintiff acknowledges as repeated violations of the Plaintiff's rights by police, the Plaintiff seeks $10,000 in compensation.
  4. Nominal damages:
    • In the absence of compensatory damages being granted, the Plaintiff seeks $7,500 in nominal damages to acknowledge the violations of the Plaintiff’s rights by the Commonwealth, consistent with the Legal Damages Act.
  5. Legal fees:
    • 30% of the value of this case, with no less than $2,000 in legal fees as mandated by the Legal Damages Act.
Evidence:

1749186305756.png

1749186324155.png

1749186338473.png

1749186353435.png

1749186370737.png

Training Guide for Trainee Officers
1750035198314.png

1750035205761.png

1750035211213.png

1750035218065.png

1750035223902.png

1750035228126.png

Witness List:
  1. Munkler
  2. PricelessArgari
  3. Rubilubi55
  4. Angryhamdog
  5. Technofied


1749186753890.png

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.



DATED: This sixth day of June anno domini two-thousand twenty five.
 
Last edited:
May I file an amicus brief on the applications of the right against unreasonable search and seizure to this case?
 
Mask3D_WOLF said:
May I file an amicus brief on the applications of the right against unreasonable search and seizure to this case?
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor,

The Plaintiff understands that an amicus brief is legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof . As Exhibit P-Z01 shows, however, the individual requesting to submit a brief is an employee of both the Department of Homeland Security (where the individual serves as a Captain) AND the Department of Justice (where the individual serves as a prosecutor).

1749280679444.png
1749280591055.png

While the title "prosecutor" may indicate that one is serving on the side of criminal prosecution, the job description for prosecutors is actually a bit broader. And the DOJ Employment Policy (see: Exhibit P-Z02) does not narrowly define their scope as being limited to criminal prosecution. Rather, it simply states that prosecutors will "respond to all assigned cases" in a better-than-timely manner.

1749281120538.png

Why is this relevant? Well, the Department of Justice uses its prosecutors in order to represent the Commonwealth in civil defense. A recent case with this arrangement includes, for example, Gnomewhisperer and GnomeCorp v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47. In this case, State Prosecutor Sir_Dogeington even submitted the Commonwealth's answer to complaint (see: Exhibit P-Z03) and filed

1749280959353.png

Because the individual requesting to submit an amicus brief is employed by the Department of Justice (c.f. Exhibit P-Z01) as a prosecutor, and the Department of Justice is duty-bound to represent the defendant (the Commonwealth), the Plaintiff notes at this so-called "amicus" brief would come from a lawyer of the same agency that will be charged with defending the Commonwealth.

The Department of Justice can wait until it is summoned and can make these arguments in their initial response to the complaint. We needn't breach this court's common procedure by allowing an individual employed as a DOJ attorney provide a brief here as an amicus when the DOJ is going to be doing the defending.

In short: The defendant has not been summoned, and the so-called "amicus" brief comes from an individual who works as an attorney in the executive branch agency that will be required to defend the Commonwealth. All together, this amounts to a breach of procedure; the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor sustain an objection to the submission of an amicus brief by a DOJ-employed lawyer in this case involving the Commonweealth's actions (and/or those of the Commonwelath's employees)..

 

Writ of Summons


@juniperfig is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Munkler v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] DCR 42.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor,

The Plaintiff understands that an amicus brief is legal document submitted to a court by individuals or organizations who are neither direct parties to a case nor a counsel thereof . As Exhibit P-Z01 shows, however, the individual requesting to submit a brief is an employee of both the Department of Homeland Security (where the individual serves as a Captain) AND the Department of Justice (where the individual serves as a prosecutor).

View attachment 55886View attachment 55885

While the title "prosecutor" may indicate that one is serving on the side of criminal prosecution, the job description for prosecutors is actually a bit broader. And the DOJ Employment Policy (see: Exhibit P-Z02) does not narrowly define their scope as being limited to criminal prosecution. Rather, it simply states that prosecutors will "respond to all assigned cases" in a better-than-timely manner.

View attachment 55888

Why is this relevant? Well, the Department of Justice uses its prosecutors in order to represent the Commonwealth in civil defense. A recent case with this arrangement includes, for example, Gnomewhisperer and GnomeCorp v Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 47. In this case, State Prosecutor Sir_Dogeington even submitted the Commonwealth's answer to complaint (see: Exhibit P-Z03) and filed

View attachment 55887

Because the individual requesting to submit an amicus brief is employed by the Department of Justice (c.f. Exhibit P-Z01) as a prosecutor, and the Department of Justice is duty-bound to represent the defendant (the Commonwealth), the Plaintiff notes at this so-called "amicus" brief would come from a lawyer of the same agency that will be charged with defending the Commonwealth.

The Department of Justice can wait until it is summoned and can make these arguments in their initial response to the complaint. We needn't breach this court's common procedure by allowing an individual employed as a DOJ attorney provide a brief here as an amicus when the DOJ is going to be doing the defending.

In short: The defendant has not been summoned, and the so-called "amicus" brief comes from an individual who works as an attorney in the executive branch agency that will be required to defend the Commonwealth. All together, this amounts to a breach of procedure; the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor sustain an objection to the submission of an amicus brief by a DOJ-employed lawyer in this case involving the Commonweealth's actions (and/or those of the Commonwelath's employees)..

Click to expand...
Objection sustained. Working as a prosecutor makes you, Mask3D_WOLF, a possible party to this case. For this reason, your request to file an amicus brief is denied. If you wish to have your arguments presented before the Court, please explain them to your colleagues or present them yourself if you're assigned the case.
 
The Commonwealth is present, Your Honor.
 

Answer to Complaint


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Munkler
Plaintiff

v.

Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense DENIES that Rubilubi55 admitted that the Plaintiff had been falsely arrested.
2. The defense DENIES that because DHS employee Rubilubi55 arrested the Plaintiff without any legitimate cause (such as a wanted star), this seizure of the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025 was unreasonable.
3. The defense DENIES that PricelessAgrari transported the Plaintiff to the jail without reading Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s Miranda rights.
4. The defense DENIES that on 24 May 2025, The Plaintiff was not permitted sufficient time to consult with counsel for their defense prior to being sent to jail.
5. The defense DENIES that the failure of DHS and its agents on 24 May 2025 to be confronted with the evidence to be used against the Plaintiff, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence, in total amounts to a violation of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
6. The defense DENIES that the failure of DHS and its agents on 24 May 2025 to swiftly advise the Plaintiff of the Plaintiff’s right to remain silent and that any statement the Plaintiff makes may be used as evidence against the Plaintiff amounts to a violation of the statutory and constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
7. The defense DENIES that as a result of these instances, the Plaintiff has lost confidence in the police force, and has suffered a reduced sense of safety while in public.
8. The defense AFFIRMS facts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Rights & Freedoms in the Constitution are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law" (Constitution, §32). One such reasonable limit prescribed by law is that "Punishments for a Summary Criminal Offense can be carried out by the relevant Government Department without a trial" (Standardized Criminal Code Act, §4.3.b). The Plaintiff in their first Claim for Relief alleges that their ninth right as defined in §32 of the Constitution has been breached, however the Plaintiff was never charged with or punished for an Indictable Criminal Offense. Being punished for a Summary Criminal Offense without a trial, confrontation with evidence and assistance of legally qualified counsel does not constitute a breach of the Plaintiff's rights as it falls under a reasonable limit prescribed by law.

2. The Plaintiff's second Claim for Relief alleges that the Commonwealth ignored the Plaintiff's 17th right as defined in §32 of the Constitution, however the Plaintiff was informed of the reason for both arrests made against them that have been referred to in the Complaint, as can be clearly seen in the evidence provided by the Plaintiff (P-001, P-002, P-004).

3. The Plaintiff's fourth Claim for Relief alleges that the Plaintiff can pursue statutory damages under the Standardized Criminal Code Act, however the relevant section starts with "If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed..." (Standardized Criminal Code Act, §4.2.c). It is clear that this statement applies conditionally to those cases where an individual has been found to be not guilty of a crime after a punishment has been imposed. As the Plaintiff has not been found not guilty of a crime after a punishment has been imposed, this statute does not apply to the situation at hand.

4. The Plaintiff's fifth Claim for Relief alleges that the Commonwealth breached Plaintiff's rights by arresting them without legal basis, however the Commonwealth did not arrest the Plaintiff without legal basis.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This twelfth day of June 2025

 
We will now enter discovery which shall end 5 days from the time of this post.

Discovery may end early upon agreement of both parties.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatory:

  1. Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely (as shown in Exhibit P-002) after having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional interrogatories.

 
Last edited:
Your honor,

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of requests for discover

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following items from the Commonwealth:

  1. Copies of any logs held by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, or any other relevant Commonwealth agency describing any of the following actions between and including 21 January 2025 and 24 May 2025:
    1. Arrests of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    2. Jailing of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    3. Fining of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth as punishment for a crime;
    4. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a killer;
    5. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a victim;
  2. Timestamps and date stamps for any item requested in Request No. 1 above.
  3. Any lists or documentation of arrests, imprisonments, and/or criminal fines performed by Rubilubi55 between and including 20 May 2025 and 22 May 2025.
  4. Any and all interface screens used by any Department of Homeland Security employee to identify wanted players for arrest.
  5. Any warrants, court orders, or subpoenas authorizing the arrest of the Plaintiff that was valid on either or both of the dates 21 May 2025 and 24 May 2025.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the original complaint by appending the following individual, who leads the Department of Homeland Security, to the Witness List:

  • Angryhamdog

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor,

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the original complaint by appending the following individual, who leads the Department of Homeland Security, to the Witness List:

  • Angryhamdog

Click to expand...
Granted.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following additional interrogatories, which shall be answered by the Commonwealth within 48 hours:

  1. What specific statutory offense did the Commonwealth charge the Plaintiff with with respect to the alleged crime recorded in Crime Record 7667 (c.f. Exhibit P-005)?
  2. With respect to the alleged crime recorded in Crime Record 7667 (c.f. Exhibit P-005), how many seconds did the Commonwealth provide the Plaintiff between being read the Plaintiff's rights under the Miranda Warnings Act and actually sending the Plaintiff to jail for that crime?
  3. What is the legal basis for the Commonwealth agent Rubilubi55 having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
  4. Did, following to the arrest of the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025, any agent of the Department of Homeland Security apologize to the Plaintiff for having falsely arrested the Plaintiff?



Moreover, Your Honor:
Franciscus said:
Your honor,

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of requests for discover

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following items from the Commonwealth:

  1. Copies of any logs held by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, or any other relevant Commonwealth agency describing any of the following actions between and including 21 January 2025 and 24 May 2025:
    1. Arrests of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    2. Jailing of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    3. Fining of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth as punishment for a crime;
    4. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a killer;
    5. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a victim;
  2. Timestamps and date stamps for any item requested in Request No. 1 above.
  3. Any lists or documentation of arrests, imprisonments, and/or criminal fines performed by Rubilubi55 between and including 20 May 2025 and 22 May 2025.
  4. Any and all interface screens used by any Department of Homeland Security employee to identify wanted players for arrest.
  5. Any warrants, court orders, or subpoenas authorizing the arrest of the Plaintiff that was valid on either or both of the dates 21 May 2025 and 24 May 2025.

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff seeks a court order to compel the Commonwealth to provide the following information in the quoted message within discovery. It has been 32 hours, and the Commonwealth has neither objected to the request nor indicated that it will abide by it.

The Plaintiff believes that the information sought will will provide information that can speak to whether the arrest on 21 May and arrest on 24 May were (un)reasonable, including information regarding for how wanted players are identified, whether the Plaintiff was actually wanted, and if any lawful basis existed for these arrests.

 
Franciscus said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatory:

  1. Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely (as shown in Exhibit P-002) after having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional interrogatories.

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your honor,

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), “Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked.” 48 hours have come and gone. The Commonwealth, with all its resources, has simply failed to respond as required.

Moreover, The Commonwealth in this case has failed for multiple days to participate in the discovery process at all. They have not objected to any request for discovery, nor provided timely any information requested in line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), nor asked for any extension before the period requiring a response ended.

The Commonwealth was recently given a "one and only warning" for this exact behavior pattern by the Federal Court. Specifically, this warning was given on 6 June 2025 at 3:50 P.M. EDT in Federal Court case Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51. That warning was backed up with a simple promise by the Courts: failure to swiftly provide a respose would result in a default judgement against the Commonwealth.

And it's not as if Commonwealth's counsel is unaware of the warning: Solicitor General gribble19 has participated in [2025] FCR 51 both before (see: Exhibit P-G01) and after (see: Exbhibit: P-G02) the Judge's warning was issued. Solicitor General Gribble19 is aware of the warning, and is doubtlessly aware of the required timeline for response to interrogatories.

Alas, the Commonwealth is unacceptably repeating this exact sort of behavior here, and prior court warnings have been insufficient to have the Commonwealth actually adhere to the timelines laid out in Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories).

For these reasons, the Plaintiff asks the court to enter a default judgement in this case against the Commonwealth, and to hold Solicitor General gribble19 (Commonwealth's representative in this case) in contempt for knowingly failing to provide timely responses in line with court rules.

Gribble participated before the warning was issued
1749929157977.png
Example of Gribble's continued participation after having received the warning
1749929282256.png

 
Franciscus said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following interrogatory:

  1. Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely (as shown in Exhibit P-002) after having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
The Plaintiff reserves the right to submit additional interrogatories.

Click to expand...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY

1. As can be seen in exhibit P-002, the recruit stated that "it was your head but another name" and then let the Plaintiff go freely.
 
gribble19 said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY

1. As can be seen in exhibit P-002, the recruit stated that "it was your head but another name" and then let the Plaintiff go freely.
Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth was asked "Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely". The Commonwealth is non-responsive here; the Commonwealth is merely stating that a statement was made ("it was your head but another name"), and then an action was taken ("then let the Plaintiff go freely").

But this does does not answer why the Plaintiff was let go; it provides no reason for the action directly.

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth "must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability" this question. And the Commonwealth, whose very agent freed the Plaintiff, should very well be able to speak to the why rather than providing a non-responsive answer that adds no new information to this case.

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your honor,

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), “Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked.” 48 hours have come and gone. The Commonwealth, with all its resources, has simply failed to respond as required.

Moreover, The Commonwealth in this case has failed for multiple days to participate in the discovery process at all. They have not objected to any request for discovery, nor provided timely any information requested in line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), nor asked for any extension before the period requiring a response ended.

The Commonwealth was recently given a "one and only warning" for this exact behavior pattern by the Federal Court. Specifically, this warning was given on 6 June 2025 at 3:50 P.M. EDT in Federal Court case Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51. That warning was backed up with a simple promise by the Courts: failure to swiftly provide a respose would result in a default judgement against the Commonwealth.

And it's not as if Commonwealth's counsel is unaware of the warning: Solicitor General gribble19 has participated in [2025] FCR 51 both before (see: Exhibit P-G01) and after (see: Exbhibit: P-G02) the Judge's warning was issued. Solicitor General Gribble19 is aware of the warning, and is doubtlessly aware of the required timeline for response to interrogatories.

Alas, the Commonwealth is unacceptably repeating this exact sort of behavior here, and prior court warnings have been insufficient to have the Commonwealth actually adhere to the timelines laid out in Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories).

For these reasons, the Plaintiff asks the court to enter a default judgement in this case against the Commonwealth, and to hold Solicitor General gribble19 (Commonwealth's representative in this case) in contempt for knowingly failing to provide timely responses in line with court rules.

Gribble participated before the warning was issuedView attachment 56098
Example of Gribble's continued participation after having received the warningView attachment 56099

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Your Honor, a Breach of Procedure "Occurs when a party violates court procedures, policies, or prior directions from the presiding judge" (Guide - Objections) and "Motions are actionable under the methods provided within the thread Guide Motions Guide" (Court Rules and Procedures, Rule 6.4). The Guide - Motions lists the types of motions that exist in our court. A Motion for Default Judgement is not one of the motions that is listed on the list of motions in the motions guide, and the motion that has been made by the Plaintiff therefore violates court procedures and policies.

 
Franciscus said:
Your honor,

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of requests for discover

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following items from the Commonwealth:

  1. Copies of any logs held by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, or any other relevant Commonwealth agency describing any of the following actions between and including 21 January 2025 and 24 May 2025:
    1. Arrests of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    2. Jailing of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth;
    3. Fining of Plaintiff by the Commonwealth as punishment for a crime;
    4. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a killer;
    5. Murder cases solved by the Commonwealth in which Plaintiff was identified as a victim;
  2. Timestamps and date stamps for any item requested in Request No. 1 above.
  3. Any lists or documentation of arrests, imprisonments, and/or criminal fines performed by Rubilubi55 between and including 20 May 2025 and 22 May 2025.
  4. Any and all interface screens used by any Department of Homeland Security employee to identify wanted players for arrest.
  5. Any warrants, court orders, or subpoenas authorizing the arrest of the Plaintiff that was valid on either or both of the dates 21 May 2025 and 24 May 2025.

Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

1. The Commonwealth's logging of every Arrest, Jailing, Fining and murder case solved is publicly available in the #logging channel of the Department of Homeland Security's discord server. As the Plaintiff can therefore access these logs themselves, there is no reason for the Commonwealth to provide the requested items.
2. See above, the logging that is publicly available contains date and time stamps.
3. The Defendant does not see how this information is relevant to the case and objects to this request.
4. The Defendant is in the process of retrieving this information and will submit it as evidence once it has been retrieved.
5. The Defendant is not currently aware of any warrants, court orders, or subpoenas authorizing the arrest of the Plaintiff that were valid on either or both of the dates 21 may 2025 and 24 may 2025.

 
The Defense enters the following piece of evidence:


D-001munklervcw.png
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Your honor,

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), “Answers to Interrogatories must be made within 48 hours of being asked.” 48 hours have come and gone. The Commonwealth, with all its resources, has simply failed to respond as required.

Moreover, The Commonwealth in this case has failed for multiple days to participate in the discovery process at all. They have not objected to any request for discovery, nor provided timely any information requested in line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), nor asked for any extension before the period requiring a response ended.

The Commonwealth was recently given a "one and only warning" for this exact behavior pattern by the Federal Court. Specifically, this warning was given on 6 June 2025 at 3:50 P.M. EDT in Federal Court case Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 51. That warning was backed up with a simple promise by the Courts: failure to swiftly provide a respose would result in a default judgement against the Commonwealth.

And it's not as if Commonwealth's counsel is unaware of the warning: Solicitor General gribble19 has participated in [2025] FCR 51 both before (see: Exhibit P-G01) and after (see: Exbhibit: P-G02) the Judge's warning was issued. Solicitor General Gribble19 is aware of the warning, and is doubtlessly aware of the required timeline for response to interrogatories.

Alas, the Commonwealth is unacceptably repeating this exact sort of behavior here, and prior court warnings have been insufficient to have the Commonwealth actually adhere to the timelines laid out in Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories).

For these reasons, the Plaintiff asks the court to enter a default judgement in this case against the Commonwealth, and to hold Solicitor General gribble19 (Commonwealth's representative in this case) in contempt for knowingly failing to provide timely responses in line with court rules.

Gribble participated before the warning was issuedView attachment 56098
Example of Gribble's continued participation after having received the warningView attachment 56099

Click to expand...
Motion denied. The warning in Vernicia v. Commonwealth of Redmont was more than likely specifically for that case.

Regardless, I will issue a similar warning. I understand the Commonwealth is busy - both with in-game and real life matters - but please request an extension if you're not sure you'll respond in time. Failure to meet another deadline will result in sanctions. (To be determined, but it'll likely be a Default Judgement.)
Franciscus said:

Objection


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Objection - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Commonwealth was asked "Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely". The Commonwealth is non-responsive here; the Commonwealth is merely stating that a statement was made ("it was your head but another name"), and then an action was taken ("then let the Plaintiff go freely").

But this does does not answer why the Plaintiff was let go; it provides no reason for the action directly.

Under Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Commonwealth "must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability" this question. And the Commonwealth, whose very agent freed the Plaintiff, should very well be able to speak to the why rather than providing a non-responsive answer that adds no new information to this case.

Click to expand...
Sustained. The Defense is directed to state a reason.
 
Franciscus said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF FURTHER INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Plaintiff submits the following additional interrogatories, which shall be answered by the Commonwealth within 48 hours:

  1. What specific statutory offense did the Commonwealth charge the Plaintiff with with respect to the alleged crime recorded in Crime Record 7667 (c.f. Exhibit P-005)?
  2. With respect to the alleged crime recorded in Crime Record 7667 (c.f. Exhibit P-005), how many seconds did the Commonwealth provide the Plaintiff between being read the Plaintiff's rights under the Miranda Warnings Act and actually sending the Plaintiff to jail for that crime?
  3. What is the legal basis for the Commonwealth agent Rubilubi55 having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
  4. Did, following to the arrest of the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025, any agent of the Department of Homeland Security apologize to the Plaintiff for having falsely arrested the Plaintiff?

Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES

1. Bank Trespass
2. Defendant does not know the answer to this question.
3. The Plaintiff's head was the same as the head of a person that committed two murders according to the system.
4. An agent of the Department of Homeland Security apologized to the Plaintiff following their arrest on 21 May 2025, however they did not do so for having falsely arrested the Plaintiff. The answer to this question is thus no.

 
JunkCereal said:
Sustained. The Defense is directed to state a reason.
Click to expand...

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY

Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely (as shown in Exhibit P-002) after having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
1. The Plaintiff's name was not the same as the name of the person that committed the 2 murders.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the release of the following logs, by this Court issuing a subpoena to the staff team for the following:

  1. Server logs of local messages sent by PricelessAgrari on 24 May 2025 containing the term “bank trespass”;
  2. Server logs of any use of commands to jail the Plaintiff on 24 May 2025, including timestamps.

 
gribble19 said:
The Defense enters the following piece of evidence:


View attachment 56113
Click to expand...
gribble19 said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS

...

4. The Defendant is in the process of retrieving this information and will submit it as evidence once it has been retrieved.

Click to expand...
Franciscus said:
Your honor,

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Submission of requests for discover

In line with Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Plaintiff requests the following items from the Commonwealth:

...

4. Any and all interface screens used by any Department of Homeland Security employee to identify wanted players for arrest.

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

While the Defense has partly complied with request number 4, the Defense has not done so completely.

The request was for "any and all" interface screens, but the Defense has not produced the interface screen that pops up when an individual hovers one's own mouse over a head.

The Plaintiff asks that this Court compel the Commonwealth to provide a screenshot of the same screen submitted in Exhibit D-001, with a mouse hovering over the head of a wanted suspect.

 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the release of the following logs, by this Court issuing a subpoena to the staff team for the following:

  1. Server logs of local messages sent by PricelessAgrari on 24 May 2025 containing the term “bank trespass”;
  2. Server logs of any use of commands to jail the Plaintiff on 24 May 2025, including timestamps.

Click to expand...
For what reason do you request these logs?
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

While the Defense has partly complied with request number 4, the Defense has not done so completely.

The request was for "any and all" interface screens, but the Defense has not produced the interface screen that pops up when an individual hovers one's own mouse over a head.

The Plaintiff asks that this Court compel the Commonwealth to provide a screenshot of the same screen submitted in Exhibit D-001, with a mouse hovering over the head of a wanted suspect.

Click to expand...
Granted. The Defense is ordered to provide the screenshot as described in the motion.
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor,

The Plaintiff hereby amends the complaint, pursuant to the following changes.

Evidence
Evidence is added to the bottom of the "evidence" portion as follows:

Training Guide for Trainee Officers
1750035198314.png

1750035205761.png

1750035211213.png

1750035218065.png

1750035223902.png
1750035228126.png

Witness List
The following witness, who wrote the Training Guide for Trainee Officers included in this motion above, is added to the Witness List:
  • Technofied

Facts
The following changes are made to the "facts" section of the complaint, and the facts section shall be renumbered pursuant to the following:
  • In the line after the current third fact, the following facts are inserted, and subsequent facts renumbered:
    • 4. In the "Training Guide for Trainee Officers", within its "PART THREE: ARRESTING MURDERERS" section, it is stated that citizens "must have a proper wanted point to be arrested. Nothing else suffices" (emphasis in original; see: Exhibit P-006).
    • 5. The "Training Guide for Trainee Officers", within its "PART THREE: ARRESTING MURDERERS" section states that officers should "Make sure to double, triple check when you run /wanted gui" (see: Exhibit P-006).
    • 6. It is possible for an officer to examine the name of a wanted suspect by opening the /wanted gui and hovering over the head of that player (see: Exhibit P-006).
  • In the line after the current fact 10, which shall be renumbered to Fact 13 after the above amendments are performed, the following facts are inserted, and subsequent facts renumbered:
Claims for Relief
The following shall be appended to the "Claims for Relief" section of the Complaint:

  • 7. Common Law Negligence. Under the precedent set by the Federal Court in Raitheguy07 v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, common law negligence occurs when three factors are met: "1) a duty of care, 2) breach of duty, and 3) damages or remedy". Each of these prongs is met.
    • 1) Duty of Care. That the Commonwealth owed the Plaintiff a duty of care is quite clear here.

      Firstly, the Commonwealth has a duty not to violate the enumerated rights of its citizens under Section 32 of the Constitution, such as the right against unreasonable seizure (c.f. Const. 32(15)), the right against unjust deprivation of liberty (c.f. Const. 32(14)), and the various due process rights under Const. 32(9).

      Secondly a statutory duty of care under the Miranda Warnings Act to advise the Plaintiff without unreasonable delay that the Plaintiff "be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense". Police ought be aware of this, and are even advised in the Training Guide for Trainee Officers to "double check that you run /dhs-notify (charges) before arresting".

      Thirdly, a statutory duty of care under the Miranda Warnings Act exists to inform arrestees, such as the Plaintiff that "they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them".
    • 2) Breaches of Duty of Care. The breaches of the duty, likewise, are clear.

      With respect to the the arrest of the Plaintiff on 21 May: the Plaintiff was certainly deprived of liberty while arrested and taken to the jail and was seized for arrest without being wanted. This clearly constitutes a breach of the constitutional duty of care. And this breach is something that can be easily avoided; as the Training Guide for Trainee Officers notes, murder suspects "must have a proper wanted point to be arrested. Nothing else suffices". And, if this was because the arresting officer lazily did not get the name of the individual who was wanted before making an arrest, this is not an excuse; lazy action that harms the rights of the citizens are not consistent with fundamental principles of justice. Officers are even trained, as the Trainee Guide for Trainee Officers notes, to "double, triple check" when using the /wanted gui.

      With respect to the arrest of the Plaintiff on 24 May, the breaches are also clear. Various constitutional due process rights under Const. 32(9), such as the right to
    • 3) Damages or remedy. Again, damages are clear, and a remedy is present.

      The damages include direct, incalculable damages for violations of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights in being unlawfully seized, deprived of liberty, and deprived of constitutional due process rights. Additionally, the Plaintiff was clearly deprived of statutory rights under the Miranda Warning Act. These are concrete and cognizable damages.

      Remedy also exists. Declaratory judgement, stating that the actions were illegal, and nominal damages exist for these sorts of incalculable damages.

 
JunkCereal said:
For what reason do you request these logs?
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

In its response to Complaint, the Commonwealth denied that transportation to jail had occurred without reading the Plaintiff the Plaintiff's Miranda rights, and also denies that sufficient time was given to consult with counsel before going to jail.
gribble19 said:

Answer to Complaint



...

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
3. The defense DENIES that PricelessAgrari transported the Plaintiff to the jail without reading Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s Miranda rights.
4. The defense DENIES that on 24 May 2025, The Plaintiff was not permitted sufficient time to consult with counsel for their defense prior to being sent to jail.

Click to expand...

The Plaintiff is trying to establish the exact timing of when the arrest and jailing happened relative to the actual charge being announced and Miranda Warnings being issued. We tried to get some this information from the Commonwealth in an interrogatory, but the Commonwealth stated that they were not able to answer for lack of knowledge.
gribble19 said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
...
1. Bank trespass
2. Defendant does not know the answer to this question.

Click to expand...

When running the /dhs-notify (charges) command, it should send a message in the local chat that comes from the arresting officer. And, if the response to the interrogatory provided by the Commonwealth that the Plaintiff was indeed charged with "bank trespass", the term "bank trespass" should appear in the arrest text.

For this reason, the logs would be helpful here. Alternatively, if no such logs exist, it would provide strong evidence that the specific charge was never given to the Plaintiff prior to the jailing of the Plaintiff.
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your honor,

The Plaintiff hereby amends the complaint, pursuant to the following changes.

Evidence
Evidence is added to the bottom of the "evidence" portion as follows:

Training Guide for Trainee Officers
View attachment 56143
View attachment 56144
View attachment 56145
View attachment 56146
View attachment 56147View attachment 56148

Witness List
The following witness, who wrote the Training Guide for Trainee Officers included in this motion above, is added to the Witness List:
  • Technofied

Facts
The following changes are made to the "facts" section of the complaint, and the facts section shall be renumbered pursuant to the following:
  • In the line after the current third fact, the following facts are inserted, and subsequent facts renumbered:
    • 4. In the "Training Guide for Trainee Officers", within its "PART THREE: ARRESTING MURDERERS" section, it is stated that citizens "must have a proper wanted point to be arrested. Nothing else suffices" (emphasis in original; see: Exhibit P-006).
    • 5. The "Training Guide for Trainee Officers", within its "PART THREE: ARRESTING MURDERERS" section states that officers should "Make sure to double, triple check when you run /wanted gui" (see: Exhibit P-006).
    • 6. It is possible for an officer to examine the name of a wanted suspect by opening the /wanted gui and hovering over the head of that player (see: Exhibit P-006).
  • In the line after the current fact 10, which shall be renumbered to Fact 13 after the above amendments are performed, the following facts are inserted, and subsequent facts renumbered:
Claims for Relief
The following shall be appended to the "Claims for Relief" section of the Complaint:

  • 7. Common Law Negligence. Under the precedent set by the Federal Court in Raitheguy07 v. Department of Commerce [2025] FCR 29, common law negligence occurs when three factors are met: "1) a duty of care, 2) breach of duty, and 3) damages or remedy". Each of these prongs is met.
    • 1) Duty of Care. That the Commonwealth owed the Plaintiff a duty of care is quite clear here.

      Firstly, the Commonwealth has a duty not to violate the enumerated rights of its citizens under Section 32 of the Constitution, such as the right against unreasonable seizure (c.f. Const. 32(15)), the right against unjust deprivation of liberty (c.f. Const. 32(14)), and the various due process rights under Const. 32(9).

      Secondly a statutory duty of care under the Miranda Warnings Act to advise the Plaintiff without unreasonable delay that the Plaintiff "be informed, without unreasonable delay, of the specific offense". Police ought be aware of this, and are even advised in the Training Guide for Trainee Officers to "double check that you run /dhs-notify (charges) before arresting".

      Thirdly, a statutory duty of care under the Miranda Warnings Act exists to inform arrestees, such as the Plaintiff that "they have a right to remain silent and that any statement they do make may be used as evidence against them".
    • 2) Breaches of Duty of Care. The breaches of the duty, likewise, are clear.

      With respect to the the arrest of the Plaintiff on 21 May: the Plaintiff was certainly deprived of liberty while arrested and taken to the jail and was seized for arrest without being wanted. This clearly constitutes a breach of the constitutional duty of care. And this breach is something that can be easily avoided; as the Training Guide for Trainee Officers notes, murder suspects "must have a proper wanted point to be arrested. Nothing else suffices". And, if this was because the arresting officer lazily did not get the name of the individual who was wanted before making an arrest, this is not an excuse; lazy action that harms the rights of the citizens are not consistent with fundamental principles of justice. Officers are even trained, as the Trainee Guide for Trainee Officers notes, to "double, triple check" when using the /wanted gui.

      With respect to the arrest of the Plaintiff on 24 May, the breaches are also clear. Various constitutional due process rights under Const. 32(9), such as the right to
    • 3) Damages or remedy. Again, damages are clear, and a remedy is present.

      The damages include direct, incalculable damages for violations of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights in being unlawfully seized, deprived of liberty, and deprived of constitutional due process rights. Additionally, the Plaintiff was clearly deprived of statutory rights under the Miranda Warning Act. These are concrete and cognizable damages.

      Remedy also exists. Declaratory judgement, stating that the actions were illegal, and nominal damages exist for these sorts of incalculable damages.

Click to expand...
Rule 3.3 does not require that amendments to complaints be requested. You are free to make amendments at any time during Discovery so long as you declare the amendments and explain why you're amending. You may amend your complaint.
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the release of the following logs, by this Court issuing a subpoena to the staff team for the following:

  1. Server logs of local messages sent by PricelessAgrari on 24 May 2025 containing the term “bank trespass”;
  2. Server logs of any use of commands to jail the Plaintiff on 24 May 2025, including timestamps.

Click to expand...
If there's any other information you think you may need provided by staff, I'm authorizing you to amend this motion to compel. I don't wish to bombard staff with multiple subpoenas. When you're satisfied, please let me know.
 
JunkCereal said:
If there's any other information you think you may need provided by staff, I'm authorizing you to amend this motion to compel. I don't wish to bombard staff with multiple subpoenas. When you're satisfied, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the release of the following logs, by this Court issuing a subpoena to the staff team for the following:

  1. Server logs of local messages sent by PricelessAgrari on 24 May 2025 containing the term “bank trespass”;
  2. Server logs of any use of commands to jail the Plaintiff on 24 May 2025, including timestamps.

Click to expand...

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honor,

In line with your authorization, the Plaintiff hereby append the following requests to the motion:

  • 3. Any and all logs that relate to the use of the /dhs-notify command by PricelessArgari on 24 May 2025, including but not limited to local chat logs and/or command-specific logs, .
  • 4. Any and all logs that relate to the arrests of the Plaintiff by a DHS agent on 21 and/or 24 June including but not limited local chat logs, plugin-related logs, and/or arrest-specific logs,
  • 5. Any and all logs that capture or describe the use of the /wanted gui by Rubilubi55 on 21 May 2025.
  • 6. Any logs describing cash payments from RubiLubi55 to the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025, including logs from /treasury.
  • 7. Any and all timestamps associated with any of the above logs, as well as the timezone associated with those timestamps.

 
Your Honor,

In order to provide the Staff Team adequate time to respond to the evidence the Plaintiff is seeking to compel through subpoena while the discovery period is still open, the Plaintiff asks for a 72-hour extension of the discovery period in line with Rule 4.4 (Request for Extension of Discovery).
 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

In line with Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor compel that the Commonwealth provide the following information in discovery:

  1. The thread located at https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/criminal-records-information.83/.
    • Reason: The Plaintiff notes that the Training Guide for Trainee Officers (Exhibit P-006) contains a reference to https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/criminal-records-information.83/, which appears to be related to procedures for writing up criminal records. The Plaintiff is unable to access this information on the forum, and asks that the Commonwealth be compelled to provide the thread in its entirety for discovery.
  2. The Plaintiff asks that the Court compel the Commonwealth to provide in discovery copies of any and all evidence used or collected by any agent of the Commonwealth that relates to the alleged offenses for which the Plaintiff was arrested by PricelessArgari on 24 May 2025.
    • Reason: Officers are trained (see: Exhibit P-006) per the following: "If you are arresting without the person being wanted, please make sure that you have the evidence that they committed a summary offense besides murder as you can now arrest without creating a wanted". The Plaintiff alleges (among other things) that the Plaintiff "was not substantially confronted with the evidence against them" during their arrest on 24 May 2025, and seeks to compel information on whether or there was actually evidence supporting this arrest at all.

 
Franciscus said:
Your Honor,

In order to provide the Staff Team adequate time to respond to the evidence the Plaintiff is seeking to compel through subpoena while the discovery period is still open, the Plaintiff asks for a 72-hour extension of the discovery period in line with Rule 4.4 (Request for Extension of Discovery).
Click to expand...
Granted. Discovery shall be extended 72 hours from the original deadline.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBPOENA

The following information is requested from @Staff Team:

1. Server logs of local messages sent by PricelessAgrari on May 24th, 2025 containing the term “bank trespass.”

2. Server logs of any use of commands to jail Munkler (or "Plaintiff") on May 24th, 2025, including timestamps.

3. Any and all logs that relate to the use of the /dhs-notify command by PricelessArgari on May 24th, 2025, including but not limited to local chat logs and/or command-specific logs.

4. Any and all logs that relate to the arrests of the Plaintiff by a DHS agent on the 21st and/or the 24th of May including but not limited to local chat logs, plugin-related logs, and/or arrest-specific logs.

5. Any and all logs that capture or describe the use of the /wanted gui by Rubilubi55 on May 21st, 2025.

6. Any logs describing cash payments from RubiLubi55 to the Plaintiff on May 21st, 2025, including logs from /treasury.

7. Any and all timestamps associated with any of the above logs, as well as the timezone associated with those timestamps.


Note: It is Staff's discretion whether to provide this information. If, for whatever reason, they refuse to provide any information, there is no recourse for the Court to compel them.
 
Franciscus said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

In line with Rule 4.7, the Plaintiff asks that Your Honor compel that the Commonwealth provide the following information in discovery:

  1. The thread located at https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/criminal-records-information.83/.
    • Reason: The Plaintiff notes that the Training Guide for Trainee Officers (Exhibit P-006) contains a reference to https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/criminal-records-information.83/, which appears to be related to procedures for writing up criminal records. The Plaintiff is unable to access this information on the forum, and asks that the Commonwealth be compelled to provide the thread in its entirety for discovery.
  2. The Plaintiff asks that the Court compel the Commonwealth to provide in discovery copies of any and all evidence used or collected by any agent of the Commonwealth that relates to the alleged offenses for which the Plaintiff was arrested by PricelessArgari on 24 May 2025.
    • Reason: Officers are trained (see: Exhibit P-006) per the following: "If you are arresting without the person being wanted, please make sure that you have the evidence that they committed a summary offense besides murder as you can now arrest without creating a wanted". The Plaintiff alleges (among other things) that the Plaintiff "was not substantially confronted with the evidence against them" during their arrest on 24 May 2025, and seeks to compel information on whether or there was actually evidence supporting this arrest at all.

Click to expand...
Motion granted. The Defense has until the end of Discovery to post the requested materials. Further, the Defense has until the end of Discovery to amend their Answer to Complaint to address the new facts presented and add any defenses they deem necessary.
 
JunkCereal said:
Granted. The Defense is ordered to provide the screenshot as described in the motion.
Click to expand...
The Defense enters the following piece of evidence:


D-002munklervcw.png
 
The Defense enters the following pieces of evidence:


D-003munklervcw.jpg
D-004munklervcw.png
 
The Defense hereby amends their Answer to Complaint by adding the sections marked green and removing sections marked red, due to the changes made by the Plaintiff's amendment and new evidence that has been provided:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
8. The defense AFFIRMS facts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.
8. The defense DENIES that on 21 May 2025, Redmont citizen Munkler (“Plaintiff”) was arrested by Department of Homeland Security employee Rubilubi55.
9. The defense DENIES that upon being arrested, Rubilubi55 told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be charged with "2x murder".
10. The defense DENIES that the Plaintiff told Rubilubi55 that Rubilubi55 had arrested the wrong person; the Plaintiff did not have even any wanted stars displayed.
11. The defense AFFIRMS all facts brought forward in Plaintiff's Complaint that have not been expressly denied above.
 
Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests an extension to Discovery of 24 hours as the end of Discovery was only 14 hours after the Motion to Compel was granted, and it was the Defendant's counsel's birthday yesterday.
 
gribble19 said:
Your Honor, Defendant respectfully requests an extension to Discovery of 24 hours as the end of Discovery was only 14 hours after the Motion to Compel was granted, and it was the Defendant's counsel's birthday yesterday.
Click to expand...
Granted. Discovery shall be extended another 24 hours from the original deadline.
 
The Plaintiff enters the following evidence, pursuant to Rule 4.6:

1750438806732.png

1750438855284.png


Moreover, the complaint is amended as follows:

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honor,

This motion serves to notify Your Honor of a modification to the complaint, as follows:

  • All references to the date 21 May 2025 are stricken and replaced with equivalent references to the date 20 May 2025.
Plaintiff's counsel apologizes for this date error.

 
gribble19 said:
The Defense hereby amends their Answer to Complaint by adding the sections marked green and removing sections marked red, due to the changes made by the Plaintiff's amendment and new evidence that has been provided:

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
...
9. The defense DENIES that upon being arrested, Rubilubi55 told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be charged with "2x murder".
10. The defense DENIES that the Plaintiff told Rubilubi55 that Rubilubi55 had arrested the wrong person; the Plaintiff did not have even any wanted stars displayed.
Click to expand...
gribble19 said:

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY

Why did Commonwealth police recruit Rubilubi55 let the Plaintiff go freely (as shown in Exhibit P-002) after having arrested the Plaintiff on 21 May 2025?
1. The Plaintiff's name was not the same as the name of the person that committed the 2 murders.

Click to expand...

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Your Honor:

It's very simple for the Commonwealth to simply not make amendments to insert knowing lies into their court filings. But, unfortunately, the Commonwealth and its Attorney General have gone out of their way to do so here:

  1. With Regards to Amended Response to Complaint, line 9: The Attorney General, and the Commonwealth, are well aware that Rubilubi55 told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be charged with "2x murder". This has been clear-as-day since the submission of Exhibit P-001, and the Commonwealth has acknowledged that the allegation here was two murders in the response to an interrogatory quoted above.

    The Commonwealth, against any rational explanation, now has submitted under penalty of perjury that they deny what is plainly in front of their face, even after previously having affirmed it. This pivot by the Attorney General is one towards a bold-faced lie, and it is one that is unacceptable when under penalty of perjury.
  2. With Regards to Amended Response to Complaint, line 10: The Attorney General, and the Commonwealth, are well aware that Rubilubi55 had arrested the wrong person. In the quote response to interrogatory above, the Commonwealth affirms that "The Plaintiff's name was not the same as the name of the person that committed the 2 murders". That is to say - the Plaintiff is not the same person who committed the two alleged murders.

    Moreover, the lack of wanted points is clear. The screenshots P-001, P-002, and P-003 make it clear that no wanted points existed.
  3. Generally: The Commonwealth claims that these changes were made "due to the changes made by the Plaintiff's amendment and new evidence that has been provided", but this too falls flat on its face; these screenshots mentioned above have been present in the complaint since the very beginning, and no new evidence has been presented by either side that would plausibly cause any doubt with respect to these two items.
The Plaintiff asks that this Court strike perjurious text (including the amendments noted above), and issue sanctions for perjury against the Plaintiff's counsel.

 
The Plaintiff enters the following evidence, pursuant to Rule 4.6:
1750488437271.png

1750488453321.png
1750488747139.png
1750489695614.png
1750490505375.png

1750490782014.png

1750490809449.png

1750490892783.png

1750490918850.png

1750490995674.png

1750491031571.png

1750491079078.png

1750491137558.png
 
The Plaintiff enters the following evidence, pursuant to Rule 4.6:
1750491872346.png

1750491997518.png

1750492048600.png

1750492073886.png

In accordance with Rule 4.9, the Plaintiff adds the additional following witness to the witness list:
  • Verysmallbirb (in Birb's capacity as a member of Staff Team)
 
JunkCereal said:
Rule 3.3 does not require that amendments to complaints be requested. You are free to make amendments at any time during Discovery so long as you declare the amendments and explain why you're amending. You may amend your complaint.
Click to expand...

In accordance with Rule 3.3, the Complaint is amended as follows:
  • In fact 13, "to the jail" is stricken and replaced with "to a holding cell in the Police Station"
  • After fact 32, the following facts are inserted and subsequent facts renumbered:
    • 33. Following the arrest of the Plaintiff on 24 May, PricelessAgrari read the Plaintiff their Miranda Rights no earlier than 3:15:39 PM EDT and no later than 3:15:44 PM EDT (see: Exhibits P-010 and P-011).
    • 34. The Plaintiff was jailed on 24 May at a time no later than 3:15:48 PM EDT (see: Exhibit P-012).
    • 35. Less than 10 seconds passed between the time that PricelessAgrari informed the Plaintiff that the means to dispute the charge would be to file a DHS #support ticket and the time that the Plaintiff was jailed (see: Exhibits P-010, P-011, P-012).
    • 36. The Plaintiff was fined $100 on 24 May by PricelessAgrari at a time no later than 3:16:19 PM EDT (see: Exhibit P-012).
 

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, alleges:
1. The plaintiff, Munkler, failed to prove that they exhausted all means of resolving the charge with the DHS before filing a lawsuit. In case 2021 SCR 16, the Supreme Court's verdict (linked) ruled in favor of the Commonwealth, specifically because the plaintiff failed to contact the Department of [Homeland Security] prior to filing suit, such as via ticket, stating, "the court also believes that as examined by the Hon. Matt_S0 in Case No. 02-2021-21, the Constitution requires the D[HS] to "[maintain] the peace and good order of the server"; and while such a burden is demanding, it doesn't require infallibility. In that case, the Department of [Homeland Security] was sued for not enforcing the law, simply because it was not reported to the police. If the Plaintiffs had an issue with the conduct of the police officer or an individual, they should have reported it and contacted the Department via a departmental ticket."
2. The Commonwealth therefore alleges that this therefore alleges a violation of rule 5.5, citing a lack of claim. There is insufficient evidence to support this charge, given precedent.

 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY

The Defense hereby requests copies of all communication and attempted communication between the Plaintiff or counsel representing them and the DHS, DOJ, or Commonwealth before the filing of this case, relating to the matters of this case.

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:


1. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error) states that a defendant may submit a motion to dismiss in instances where it is clear through the course of discovery that the plaintiff made a factual error in their complaint or amended complaint.
2. The Plaintiff's amended Complaint states:
"Compensatory damages – statutory damages:

  • $500 in compensatory damages under Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(2)(c), which entitles the Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely."
3. P-004 shows that 5 minutes and 51 seconds out of the 10 minutes in jail to which Plaintiff was sentenced were skipped by Plaintiff, meaning that Plaintiff only spent 4 minutes in jail. The claim that SCCA §4(2)(c) entitles the Plaintiff to $500 in compensatory damages is therefore factually incorrect.

4. SCCA §4(2)(c) states that the damages defined therein apply "If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed..." Plaintiff has not been found to be not guilty of a crime, and therefore the claim that SCCA §4(2)(c) entitles Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely is factually incorrect.

 
gribble19 said:

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:


1. Rule 5.14 (Factual Error) states that a defendant may submit a motion to dismiss in instances where it is clear through the course of discovery that the plaintiff made a factual error in their complaint or amended complaint.
2. The Plaintiff's amended Complaint states:
"Compensatory damages – statutory damages:

  • $500 in compensatory damages under Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(2)(c), which entitles the Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely."
3. P-004 shows that 5 minutes and 51 seconds out of the 10 minutes in jail to which Plaintiff was sentenced were skipped by Plaintiff, meaning that Plaintiff only spent 4 minutes in jail. The claim that SCCA §4(2)(c) entitles the Plaintiff to $500 in compensatory damages is therefore factually incorrect.

4. SCCA §4(2)(c) states that the damages defined therein apply "If an individual is found to be not guilty of a crime after punishment has been imposed..." Plaintiff has not been found to be not guilty of a crime, and therefore the claim that SCCA §4(2)(c) entitles Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely is factually incorrect.

Click to expand...
Mask3D_WOLF said:

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, alleges:
1. The plaintiff, Munkler, failed to prove that they exhausted all means of resolving the charge with the DHS before filing a lawsuit. In case 2021 SCR 16, the Supreme Court's verdict (linked) ruled in favor of the Commonwealth, specifically because the plaintiff failed to contact the Department of [Homeland Security] prior to filing suit, such as via ticket, stating, "the court also believes that as examined by the Hon. Matt_S0 in Case No. 02-2021-21, the Constitution requires the D[HS] to "[maintain] the peace and good order of the server"; and while such a burden is demanding, it doesn't require infallibility. In that case, the Department of [Homeland Security] was sued for not enforcing the law, simply because it was not reported to the police. If the Plaintiffs had an issue with the conduct of the police officer or an individual, they should have reported it and contacted the Department via a departmental ticket."
2. The Commonwealth therefore alleges that this therefore alleges a violation of rule 5.5, citing a lack of claim. There is insufficient evidence to support this charge, given precedent.

Click to expand...
Your honor,

Plaintiff requests permission to respond to the motions to dismiss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top